Critical-Tim

My understanding of existence begins with the metaphysical view that reality is not a collection of static objects, but rather a dynamic and indivisible web of interconnected processes and events. I believe everything unfolds along a predetermined path, with the past, present, and future inextricably linked, possibly within grand, repeating cosmic cycles. Crucially, I consider subjective conscious experience to be the primary, most certain reality; speculating about a wholly objective, observer-independent universe seems unproductive, as my reality is the one I perceive. Indeed, I see consciousness as one and the same with the perspective of the matter from which it emerged. Thus, metaphysical inquiry for me is not about uncovering some hidden, noumenal truth, but rather constructing coherent interpretations of this phenomenal world, valuing these conceptual schemes for their explanatory power regarding my perceptions.

When it comes to knowledge and how I justify my beliefs, I adopt a coherentist stance: a belief is warranted if it fits optimally within the broader network of my understanding. I believe new knowledge is acquired through a dynamic interplay between sensory experience, which provides the raw data, and rational thought, which structures and interprets it—a sort of Kantian synthesis. While I generally hold that human knowledge is fallible, I do think we can attain absolute certainty in specific, limited domains, such as fundamental logical truths or the immediate, indubitable fact of my own conscious experience. I also recognize that what a society accepts as "knowledge" is largely shaped by its social, cultural, and historical contexts, reflecting what best enables its members to maintain a coherent subjective experience. For me, the project of epistemology itself should be an integrated one, descriptively analyzing how we actually form beliefs in order to normatively establish how we ought to reason more effectively.

In the realm of axiology, or value, I am fundamentally a subjectivist; I believe that values like goodness, beauty, or rightness are not objective properties of the world but rather depend on individual preferences, desires, or emotional responses. My ethical framework, therefore, is a form of consequentialist social contractarianism, rooted in rational constructivism: moral norms are agreements forged from rational principles by individuals who all have something to lose, designed for mutual protection, and the morality of an action is best judged by its consequences for all sentient beings capable of experiencing pleasure or pain. Similarly, I find that the value of an artwork—its aesthetic merit—is located subjectively in my personal response and the immersive, emotional experience it evokes. The primary socio-cultural function of art, as I see it, is ultimately hedonic: to provide pleasure and emotional uplift, even if it achieves this through challenging conventions or expressing complex identities.

Finally, concerning logic, I uphold a position of classical logical monism. I believe there is ultimately one correct system of logic—classical logic, with principles like bivalence and non-contradiction—that is universally applicable and forms the correct foundation for all rigorous reasoning, once statements are framed concretely. While I see formal logic as an idealized abstraction, a refined and successful version of patterns inherent in human cognition and perception, its principles are strongly normative; they provide binding standards for how we ought to reason across all domains. In everyday arguments, intuition and common sense often suffice, but for critical analysis and the pursuit of proven conclusions, the application of this formal logical structure is paramount.